tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7621529782651296685.post7734612079089870355..comments2020-08-01T22:28:50.016-06:00Comments on Proactive Progressive Populism: Intensive Science continuedEdward Bergehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864657929019204993noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7621529782651296685.post-16007551197787789292012-04-02T17:23:39.105-06:002012-04-02T17:23:39.105-06:00Ouch, the scribd is missing some pages, I will hav...Ouch, the scribd is missing some pages, I will have to see if I can get a better copy. I will buy it if I can get it on kindle.<br /><br />To summarize this debate, I think we can group the way various theorists understand horizontal and vertical relationships into four classes:<br /><br />1) There are only vertical levels, there are no horizontal connections. I’m not sure anyone espouses this view, but as DeLanda says about naive realism, it’s important to stake it out if only to show that other approaches convincingly refute it. I guess Aristotle’s Great Chain of Being would come about as close as anything, in that horizontal relationships are not considered part of the chain, though Aristotle certainly recognized the existence of such relationships.<br /><br />2) There are both vertical levels and horizontal connections, but they are more or less independent of each other. I think this is a fair characterization of Wilber’s view. Maybe if he were pushed on this point he would modify it, but as far as I recall, there is nothing in his work discussing how the two might be related.<br /><br />3) Horizontal interactions are essential to creating vertical levels. This is my view, and it may be the view of DeLeuze, DeLanda, Latour, etc. There are passages in their writings that seem to endorse this notion. I would like to think they do, and that the most serious questions revolve around the nature of how the one creates the other. But...<br /><br />4) There are only horizontal interactions. All three of the above also seem to say this at points. I commented on this earlier wrt LaTour. In one of the DeLanda links, he implies this when saying, “animals are no better than rocks”. Some scientists also echo this view. Stephen Jay Gould’s view of evolution as a bush rather than a tree is a statement of it. I remember coming across a textbook on evolution in which the author said in all seriousness that humans were no more evolved than or superior to bats. This is where I think Wilber is very strong, pointing out the contradiction in making statements like this. If we are in no sense higher or better than bats, let alone rocks, then that very statement, which only a member of the human species could make, has no more value than some other statement, including its opposite.Andyhttp://www.nodimensions.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7621529782651296685.post-4748662677472057822012-04-02T05:50:01.550-06:002012-04-02T05:50:01.550-06:00Just started reading Intensive Science. I was imme...Just started reading Intensive Science. I was immediately struck by the similarity of the approach to that of Deacon's Incomplete Nature. Deacon is also concerned with the problem of classes or essences, and like DeLeuze, turns to morphogenesis, or what he calls morphodynamics, which also involves differences, or what he calls contragrade processes.<br /><br />Will have to read much more to judge further, but it seems that there is a lot of common ground here. I can't recall if Deacon cites DeLeuze, and the version of his book I have access to doesn't seem to let me search.<br /><br />More on this later.Andyhttp://www.nodimensions.comnoreply@blogger.com